FAYETTEVILLE, Ark. — Programs like affirmative action that target economic status may have a greater impact on crime reduction than previously realized, according to University of Arkansas economist Amy Farmer. Farmer’s study also demonstrated that racial profiling may reduce crime, but only at the expense of justice.

Farmer, associate professor of economics, and Dek Terrell of Louisiana State University studied the economic returns on various methods to reduce crime. Using crime data from the FBI, they developed a model that determines the range of inequality in the United States justice system. Their findings appear in the current issue of the Journal of Law and Economics.

"When society is divided into two groups with different actual or perceived crime rates, maintaining a low crime rate, minimizing the total number of innocent individuals convicted of a crime and keeping the probability of wrongly convicting an innocent individual equal across groups are incompatible social goals," explained Farmer

Farmer and Terrell conclude that the only way to achieve all three social goals is to lower the crime rate in the high-crime group. They argue that social programs that lower the crime rates in the high crime group will provide a large overall benefit and help achieve all three social objectives simultaneously.

"If, as Schotter and Weiglt argue, affirmative action lowers crime among disadvantaged groups, then our model suggests additional benefits from affirmative action," said Farmer. "Likewise, other programs designed to improve economic opportunities and lower crime rates of high crime groups might be justified on efficiency grounds. These policies may generate substantial benefits in terms of crime and equality that may not be included in standard cost-benefit decision making."

The researchers believe that most Americans are unaware of these trade-offs. Increased awareness of the impact of improving the economic conditions of disadvantaged groups on crime rate may produce a more positive attitude toward these programs.

Previous researchers have focused on the economic incentives for criminals to commit crimes. They have generally looked at the probability of getting caught and the expected punishment. However, Farmer and Terrell looked at the tradeoffs a society must make to minimize crime when two groups have different crime rates. They examined data on both racial and gender inequality.

"Even members of the same group form prior opinions of the propensity to commit crimes based on an individual’s race or gender," Farmer said. "Since neither race nor gender is hidden from police, judges and juries, lack of complete information regarding an individual’s characteristics may lead people to use group membership to assist in decision making."

The researchers found that an interesting social problem arose. When they assumed that the social goals were to minimize crime and avoid convicting innocent people, they found that the only way to do so was to require less evidence to convict members of the high-crime rate group.

"That would include considering such things as membership in the high-crime group," said Farmer. "A society who cares about justice may not consider racial profiling to be an appropriate mechanism for reducing crime."

Farmer and Terrell sought to determine the potential magnitude of these tradeoffs and the difference in conviction standards across groups. They found that an innocent African American was more than eight times more likely to be convicted of murder than an innocent white American.

But eliminating social inequality also had a cost, according to Farmer and Terrell. They found that if the probability of convicting an innocent person was reduced to one in a million, achieving equal probabilities across racial groups could cost 1,903 lives per year. Reaching equality across genders could increase the murder rate by 1,400 lives.

"This illuminates an extremely serious social dilemma between crime and equality," Farmer explained. "The primary contribution of our work is to acknowledge this third trade-off and to recognize the vast social implications that may result. If society places weight on all three of these social goals, it is likely that unequal treatment within the justice system will prevail."

These inequalities can erode the level of trust that groups place in the legal system. In addition, inequality can lead to social discord. The researchers believe that "since these differences can never be eliminated, the only solution is to mitigate the trade-off that generates these differences."

The researchers set up their model for many different scenarios and assumptions, including different percentages of crime committed by the high-crime group, different numbers of crimes committed by a single individual and different conviction rates. They found that the basic results remained the same — reduced costs in one area were offset by increased costs in another.